Russian Lawmaker Vitaly Milonov is promising to arrest Olympic athletes found to be in violation of the country’s new abusive anti-gay law. The “gay propaganda” law has led many to call for the games to be shifted from Russia since the host country would arrest athletes who are openly gay. In the meantime, a boycott of Russian vodka has picked up steam around the world in protest of the crackdown on gays and lesbians.
Milonov says that he does not know any gays and insisted that Russia is merely “defending children from the propaganda of non-traditional values.” He added that “I’ve spoken to US politicians, and they support my stance.” That might have been Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) who already maintained a wide stance on such issues.
The greatest moment however came with Milonov explaining that the government has no choice but to arrest athletes since it would be selective prosecution not to. So the crackdown on journalists, protesters, and lawyers is not selective prosecution? It is just uniformly prosecuting critics of Vladimir Putin.
Milonov appeared to stress that being gay is not needed for some sports like figure-skating: “I can say that the best figure-skating in the world is the Soviet school of figure skating . . . All of our people have been brought up in a very traditional way.”
The Russian law is not only discriminatory but absurdly written to cover any act or effort “to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18).” What that means is anyone’s guess but, since these games have many children interacting with athletes, an openly gay athlete would be at obvious risk. The law is part of an unholy alliance between Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox church.
The comments by the way contradict an assurance from the International Olympic Committee that athletes would not be subject to the law. It certainly sets up a perfect repeat of the Berlin games with Jesse Owens and another authoritarian leader. In this case, it will be homophobia rather than racism but the scene has not changed much otherwise.
Source: IB Times
Kraaken, A neighbor who is gay, and told me he has good gaydar, thinks Putin may be gay. Not definitely but “good chance.” What do you think?
nick spinelli 1, July 31, 2013 at 10:33 am
I think Putin is gay …
======================
You think, therefore Putin is gay.
I think, therefore I Id.
I think, therefore I am.
I reek, therefore I have privacy.
Cool, we need some new bumper stickers bro.
Heaven forbid an adult should tell a suicidal teenager that he can be gay and still live a full and happy life. I am not familiar with Russian law, but from the comments on the statute contained in the link posted above, it appears that such conduct could well be illegal.
bigfatmike:
You said: “Our main difference. . . I see no threat to children from adults being themselves and living without fear.”
Uh, didn’t you ever hear of Jerry Sandusky??? Or all those Catholic priests???
As far as “no benefit to society from preventing adults from making their own decisions”
Uh, once again, that is precisely why we have The Law. Because when adults make their own decisions, they tend to lie, cheat, kill, steal, rape, commit adultery, covet stuff, and do a whole host of other bad things. That is why Bloomberg wants to downsize the sugar water, on the smaller end, to Sarbanes-Oxley on the larger end of the spectrum. Not to mention, the whole Nuremburg thingy.
Perhaps the better discussion is whether or not whatever behavior is at question presents unwarranted risks to society, or interferes with our particular legal framework of rights.
The Ruskies have decided that Gay Activism is not a good thing for their country, and perhaps the “cultural sensitivity” that is sooo often preached, about, and demanded, should occasionally be practiced.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I see this law as Russia’s Pre-Emptive Strike against the Gaystapo getting a foothold there. Because for some reason, once ACTIVIST Gays are successful in getting some relief for their base, they then turn to trying to shut everybody else up. Kind of like the Nazis, Free speech is fine when they are goose-stepping up and down the streets, and then when they are in power, no more marching without a permit.
For example, in San Antonio:
The ordinance reads: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds … [they have] engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability.”
Geesh, talk about some repression.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Nick @10:33: OMG what a HORRIBLE thought! 🙂
” the public might have a legitimate interest in say forbidding people from having sex openly in front of your house in full view of your children.”
We were talking about ‘sexual liberation movements’, which I think is a legitimate political position.
To claim, as you seem to, that governments can or should limit ‘sexual liberation movements’ because some people might do ‘it’ in public seems specious to me.
I just don’t see any great risk that individuals who advocate sexual tolerance or sexual liberation are going to perform in public. Even if there were some individuals who did perform in public, shouldn’t the usual laws against public display be sufficient to deal with the problem.
Again, Why does the threat, which I consider remote, of public display lead to the conclusion that the state has a “legitimate interest to keep their society from being subjected to sexual liberation movements”
As for gays ‘openly promoting their lifestyle to children’, I have to question the idea that being oneself or advocating a political position is “promoting …to children”. That seems like a slander to me.
In addition I have to question the idea that any amount of promoting could possibly alter the outlook of a person of any age. We may not know the exact process that leads to sexual preference, but it seems to occur very early, likely long before rational thought.
Despite our disagreement, I think it is important to give serious consideration to your concerns. I am sure most of us would act similarly if we had the same fears as you.
Our main difference, as I see it, is that I see no benefit to society from preventing adults from making their own decisions, I see no threat to society from adults advocating for tolerance and equal protection, I see no threat to children from adults being themselves and living without fear.
Two of the event winners should perform a Gay Pride salute akin to the Black Power salute during the ’68 Olympics.
I believe this link has the text of the law in question. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/11/1082469/-Full-English-text-of-Russia-s-anti-gay-law#
I passed by a crystal ball at Wallmart which had a scene of a Russian Customs Office with a long line of people waiting to enter Russia.
They were homophobic U.S. Republican House Members.
davidm2575: ” I would say that government has a legitimate interest to keep their society from being subjected to sexual liberation movements like that thrust upon us by the homosexual agenda.”
I would be very interested in knowing what this ‘Gay Agenda’ you people constantly talk about actually is. Having been gay all my life and having been ‘out’ for several years, I can tell you I have never seen nor heard such a thing (unlike the Tea party agenda, the Conservative agenda, etc.) Face it David2575. YOU and your ilk are on the wrong side of history.
david2575: “the public might have a legitimate interest in say forbidding people from having sex openly in front of your house in full view of your children.”
And WE have the right to not be subjected to straight couples mauling each other in parks or bars, or at the movies, etc. Once again david, you’re on the wrong side of history.
color me gobsmacked.
I’m a say what….
“government has a legitimate interest to keep their society from being subjected to sexual liberation movements”
Isn’t a sexual liberation movement also a political movement that addresses the issue of individual choice in the most personal matters possible?
What, exactly, is the state interest in preventing consenting adults, of sound mind, from making their own decisions to interact the way they choose?
BigFatMike wrote: “What, exactly, is the state interest in preventing consenting adults, of sound mind, from making their own decisions to interact the way they choose?”
As I mentioned, there are different levels of analysis. You are only picking out the private behavior part. You have to look at the bigger picture or you create a logical fallacy by implying that allowing one type of liberty in a particular class of behaviors equates to allowing all types of behavior.
In some ways, freedom of sexual behavior resembles the free speech issue. While people ought to be free to act certain ways in the privacy of their own home, there might be legitimate interests to curtail certain behavior in public. For example, free speech does not give people the right to go into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” just to get his jollies from watching everyone run out of there. The government can step in and say that despite the value of free speech, this goes too far and we will not allow that. In the same way, while we might agree with people conducting their sexual behavior in private, the public might have a legitimate interest in say forbidding people from having sex openly in front of your house in full view of your children.
This identifies only one situation that might affect a person’s sensibilities concerning appropriate sexual behavior. There are many others that can be made. If government finds that groups promoting sexual hedonism to society is detrimental to society as a whole, they may choose to limit that kind of promotion. For example, in regards to the Olympics, government might rightly not want gays openly promoting their sexual lifestyle to children participating in the events. It is analogous to how many parents might not want homosexuals to hold gay parades in the P.E. classes at high schools in an attempt to recruit sexually curious children to try the gay lifestyle.
With some effort Russia may be able to rise to the level of Iran where, we are assured, there are no gay people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483746/We-dont-gays-Iran-Iranian-president-tells-Ivy-League-audience.html
I don’t know how any western country can send their athletes to any country that threatens the possible arrest of their athletes whatever the reason.
Oh and davidm2575 shouldn’t you be in Uganda promoting the Kill the Gays bill?
I think Putin is gay. NTTAWWT.
It would be helpful to have a link to the actual law being talked about here. It is my understanding that it concerns public propaganda by gays, such as public displays like the “kissing rally” that gays were holding in Russia. The law passed 436 to 0, so how can the author here be so critical without proper analysis of the law? Furthermore, the interest of government to regulate propaganda that promotes sexual hedonism in society is a completely different issue from criminalizing issues like sexual orientation, private sexual behavior, or forms of sexual behavior done in public. I would say that government has a legitimate interest to keep their society from being subjected to sexual liberation movements like that thrust upon us by the homosexual agenda.
One issue might be worth bringing up is that the original Olympics involved a lot of naked male athletes. I wonder what the Russians think about that? Of course, they did not have spandex or many of the materials of which modern exercise clothing is made.
This is just one more reason to stay away from Russia. Unless you are a guy named Snowden!
And yet another boycott I am morally bound to support and will.
(I swear to god, Jif peanut butter better not do anything … )